Again, the sheer number of planets in the universe is not evidence in itself. Most of them will be around stars that are unstable flare stars, multiple star systems, don’t have enough heavy elements, or are too short-lived. Then there are the planets themselves. Most will not be in the habitable zone, are gas giants, have no water, etc. It is said that without a moon the size of ours, Earth’s tilt would be too unstable for life. We don’t know how rare that is in the universe. There is also a magnetic field that is needed, perhaps a fractured crust, etc. etc. There could be dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other factors which would make life impossible. Earth itself has had several extinction events which very nearly wiped out all life. I don’t think it’s pessimistic to consider this, I think it’s realistic.
The reason this is being studied and discussed is, the sheer volume of stars is so vast and has grown so much, that the ability to ascertain exact characteristics hasn't been reached yet. You're speaking as if you know, and if you did, you'd be the only one.
Thanks for the partial list of requirements for life. It’s clear that there are many stars, but that the chance origin and sustainment of life is infinitesimally small. How this plays out in the Drake equation is a matter of speculation IMO.
There are some people who really don’t want to believe in extraterrestrial life. There are those, many more I think, who really want to believe in extraterrestrial life.
I saw Kaku on TV and he proceeded as though an infinite number of universes was a matter of fact, not speculation. That is one way to blow up the numerator in the Drake equation. As far as I know, there is no reason to believe that there is more than one universe.